Barack Obama is a feel-good guy, but his positions are Clintonian

By Cal Thomas
Article Last Updated: 01/09/2008 06:40:33 PM MST

Politicians don't usually get me excited, but Barack Obama does. Maybe it's the contrast between him and the elocutionally-challenged President Bush. Having lived through and reported on the Civil Rights movement, perhaps the source of my euphoria is the possibility of a black man being taken seriously as a presidential candidate when just four decades ago in America he would have been barred from certain hotels, restrooms, lunch counters and neighborhoods.

Electing Obama, some rationalize, might be the propitiation for our racist sins; a fulfillment of Dr. King's dream about judging a man by the content of his character, not the color of his skin.

There is a double standard still applied to black people in America, however. The media and "black leadership" play down the accomplishments of a Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas and Condoleezza Rice because of their associations with the Republican Party (though Powell was also associated with the Clinton administration, he remains a Republican), while Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Barack Obama are lionized because their liberal policy positions comport with most of those in the media, academia and the rest of the liberal establishment.

If you read Obama's record, however, you'll find his positions differ little from those of Hillary Clinton. According to a compilation of the voting records and position statements of Clinton and Obama (available at www.2decide.com/table.htm),
the two senators hold identical positions on nearly every issue. From abortion on demand (support), to the war in Iraq (for withdrawal and against the troop surge), embryonic stem cell research, gun control and plenty more, both candidates are joined at the ideological hip.

The difference is that Obama makes us feel good and Hillary Clinton doesn't. Obama has the prettier family portrait. As with JFK, who doesn't long to see children romping around the White House? That would make our youth-obsessed Baby Boomers feel young again, an objective that occupies increasing amounts of their time.

MORE >>>>
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_7924872

Obama wants us out of Iraq. Lieberman doesn't.

try not talking out of your rear region. That's just laughble. What on earth posseses people to just make shit up like that?

Centrist, New Democrat. This keeps the Boren Group happy and
lessons the chance of Bloomberg running.

that is why Bloomberg was going to run. Which way is it? :eyes:

running as one. Two Centrists can run.

bring Bloomberg into the race because the people want "change".

and then screws it up.

First of all, I agree with this statement: "Others before Obama have come to Washington with the announced intention of "changing the tone." No one changes Washington. Washington changes them."
This is one reason why I don't want to ever run for public office. Russ Feingold and Ron Paul seem to be of the few people who have not been changed by the powers that be in Washington. Add Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) to that list.

He believes that Clinton is responsible letting terrorists flourish. That is not true. Clinton was the first President to implement a comprehensive anti-terrorist policy with teeth. All the while, Cal's "heroes" Raygun and Daddy Bush were funding the terrorists.
I do agree that Carter made a serious mistake regarding the Iran hostage crisis. We cannot let that happen again. I do not believe that Carter was appeasing the hostage takers, but he was too soft with them. I worry that inexperience will get Obama caught in the same trap as Carter did. Any implication that Democrats are going deliberately let terrorists have their way is PURE BULLSHIT!
The only Republicans running who would fight to curtail terrorism are Ron Paul and John McCain.
The rest of them are going to APPEASE them just as Bush has. Rudy has business deals with these bastards.

As for Obama, he is not that different from Hillary on policy. He is different on style. Style alone is not going to you through the shitstorms that await you.
Either you get along with the right wing and give up most of what you want or you fight for it.
This is why I would still like to see Edwards get the nomination. He's to my left, but he will make hell for the right wing. He will take no bullshit!

"Feeling Good" is not good enough. I understand why Obama has such broad appeal now. He makes you feel good. He does not promise much on policy and getting things done the proper way, but he makes you feel good. It's a mania. I understand why it is happening. People are very angry about what has happened over the past 7 years and they want to feel good that things can get better. Understandable, however, feeling good is no where near enough. Cleaning up the mess that the Neo-Cons have made is what would make me feel better. I am more interested in someone who is a doer, rather than a talker.
I know that puts me in a distinct minority, but I don't give a damn. I have never been known to do what is popular. Rememeber, popular is not always right.

There's been such angst and sadness around the country.
<><><>

GET OUT THE VOTE! http://www.cafepress.com/powerboutique

Cal Thomas writes as the truth. That POS wouldn't know the truth if it sat on his face.